Paris Attacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Yes. American hostage rescue and counterterrorism units are unrivaled. They certainly wouldn’t have pumped the theater full of a fentanyl analog 1000 times more potent than morphin, directly killing 15 percent of the hostages. The lethality of the chemical weapon was over twice that of those used in WWI.
[/quote]

You have a thousand hostages packed in a school that is rigged to blow, with 30 terrorists watching every entrance. No unit, no matter how well trained, could avoid a bloodbath in this situation. You can’t even spell Beslan, don’t pretend you could’ve done any better.[/quote]

My post explicitly referred to the Moscow theater hostage crisis.

The Russians royally fucked up in Beslan. The MVD knew four hours in advance via actionable human intelligence that an attack on a school in Beslan was planned for September 1, 2004. The terrorists trained for weeks without interference in the woods in the republic of Ingushetia, which neighbors North Ossetia, although a bloody terrorist attack less than three months before, on June 21-22, had supposedly put Ingushetia on high alert. The terrorists traveled unimpeded to the school in several vehicles over roads that were supposedly heavily guarded. Of the 18 terrorists who were later positively identified, the majority were supposed to have been in prison, some on terrorism charges no less.

There is evidence that the terrorists’ real aim was not to kill the hostages but to negotiate a political settlement of the Chechen conflict. The terrorists demanded that the president of North Ossetia, Alexander Dzasokhov, begin negotiations with them. But the FSB set up a crisis headquarters from which Dzasokhov was excluded, and threatened to arrest him if he tried to go to the school. Despite a documented list of demands, Russian authorities falsely stated that the terrorists had presented no demands.

Survivors testified that the Russians fired first, using incendiary rockets, grenade launchers, and tanks, heavy weapons wholly inappropriate for the task at hand. Expert analysis attributes up to 80 percent of hostage casualties to indiscriminate Russian fire. Many had to die because of Moscow’s deluded belief that any negotiations would have been an implicit recognition of Chechen aspirations.

184

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Bullshit. The literature shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, democracies are superior counter-terrorists. See the link below. Security policy is not a popularity contest fortunately. Uninformed civilians (yourself among them) don’t formulate or conduct policy. Policymakers and practitioners do.

[/quote]

I’m not talking about the direct response to a terrorist incident. Obviously the counter-terrorism response is effective. I’m talking about military intervention to get to the source, which is a popularity contest. No one is going to vote for another Iraq war, especially not in Europe.[/quote]

The counter-terrorism response is military intervention. The US and its coalition allies have been at war with ISIL for well over a year.

185

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

PMCs? Are you fucking serious? Relatively small numbers of light infantry fighting for nothing more than a paycheck and without organic close air support, armor, or heavy weapons platoons are going to defeat over a division of zealous ISIL fighters fielding heavy weapons, artillery, tanks, and armored fighting vehicles?
[/quote]

They have air support and heavy weapons. [/quote]

That’s a pretty big assumption.

The battlefields of Iraq and Syria are not Sierra Leone.

From an ethical and international legal perspective, yes it does. As Machiavelli pointed out five hundred years ago, mercenaries are unreliable. Volunteer forces are more reliable and have far greater efficacy. Their employment in in Afghanistan and Iraq made the US military mission their more dangerous and more expensive, and has even diluted the power of the military for strategic decision-making. PMCs undermine â?¨world order.

[quote]

(and many people in conventional militaries are just there for a paycheck anyway). [/quote]

Not in the combat arms, especially Special Operations Forces.

ISIL evolved from al-Qaida in Iraq. It’s constituted by seasoned and skilled fighters with American blood on their hands. It’s also rife with former Ba’ath Party officers. The fighters of the terrorist quasi-state are experienced, well-armed, well-financed, and informed by a millennial Weltanschauung. ISIL isn’t a ragtag group of Mujahideen.

[quote]
a well-organised, well-armed group of ex-servicemen (in most cases former special forces) with unofficial support from Western governments seems like a pretty decent match up to me. [/quote]

ISIL is well organized and more heavily armed than any PMC. Unofficial support? Another huge assumption. Even with it, they would be heavily outnumbered and outgunned.

[quote]

ISIS recruits are cowards who fled their homes to try play heroes. Their strength in numbers will fade pretty quickly when they’re faced with people who are more than able to fight back.[/quote]

They are zealots committed to killing and dying for their cause. It hasn’t occurred yet, and they’ve been engaged in heavy combat on all sides for well over a year now.

186

[quote]Bismark wrote:
That’s a pretty big assumption.
[/quote]

EO had air support and armored vehicles in Sierra Leone, and they were one of the first major modern PMC’s. The private military industry is much larger now, with over $100bn a year in annual revenue. Several large PMC’s working in tandem would deal a major blow to ISIS, and because you rightly pointed out that they only work for a paycheck, they are not constrained by the political bullshit that conventional armies have to deal with. They’re all volunteers and do this willingly, throw them some money and let them take care of business. Much more effective than arming the local “moderate” Islamic rebels who then go on and attack you down the line once they have a taste of power.

[quote]
The battlefields of Iraq and Syria are not Sierra Leone.[/quote]

No shit.

[quote]
From an ethical and international legal perspective, yes it does. As Machiavelli pointed out five hundred years ago, mercenaries are unreliable. Volunteer forces are more reliable and have far greater efficacy. Their employment in in Afghanistan and Iraq made the US military mission their more dangerous and more expensive, and has even diluted the power of the military for strategic decision-making. PMCs undermine â?¨world order.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/2015-06-16/hired-guns[/quote]

Terrorists blowing shit up undermines world order as well. If conventional forces aren’t allowed to go in (again, due to aforementioned political reasons), then send in the PMC’s.

[quote]
Not in the combat arms, especially Special Operations Forces.[/quote]

My point was that signing on out of a sense of patriotism doesn’t automatically make you a more capable fighter than people who sign on for money. The morality of mercenaries is a whole topic altogether that I won’t discuss.

[quote]
ISIL evolved from al-Qaida in Iraq. It’s constituted by seasoned and skilled fighters with American blood on their hands. It’s also rife with former Ba’ath Party officers. The fighters of the terrorist quasi-state are experienced, well-armed, well-financed, and informed by a millennial Weltanschauung. ISIL isn’t a ragtag group of Mujahideen.[/quote]

Have you seen that “special forces” video they put out? The core leadership may be experienced, but the cannon fodder on the ground doing the fighting (i.e. the young guys who flew there from Europe and other Western countries) have zero experience and will melt away as soon as they encounter any resistance. Even the experienced guys don’t have any training comparable to Western special forces (which you have pointed out are the best), which make up the bulk of PMC personnel.

[quote]
ISIL is well organized and more heavily armed than any PMC. Unofficial support? Another huge assumption. Even with it, they would be heavily outnumbered and outgunned.[/quote]

So what’s the alternative? Drone strikes until they give up? You cannot negotiate with these people, so either send in conventional forces that can recapture territory, train local forces (bad idea, from what we have seen the last several decades), or send in PMC’s.

[quote]
They are zealots committed to killing and dying for their cause. It hasn’t occurred yet, and they’ve been engaged in heavy combat on all sides for well over a year now.[/quote]

Many of them are zealots, but probably not the majority. The majority are opportunists who saw that ISIS are strong and came along for the ride to loot civilians. They have not encountered any serious opposition apart from Western & Russian airstrikes. The local militias and international volunteers that are attempting to resist are woefully undertrained and underequipped. The Iraqi Army certainly doesn’t qualify as serious opposition, as we’ve learned many times.

187

Eight months ago in Greece…

188

A second Paris gunman has been confirmed as having entered Europe via Greece by posing as a refugee.

189

Just turned on the news. Something’s happening at a French memorial for the victims, don’t know what yet. May be another attack. Keep ya’ll posted.

False alarm:

190

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is my wife’s proposal. If she were president, this is what she would do…

Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple “Good evening America. You’re welcome. Good night.”[/quote]

Respond to mass murder with nuclear mass murder. Seems tenable. [/quote]

I know! I’m still am saddled with guilt for our actions in WW2!

I think America should be brought up on crimes through the World Court.

Why do people think you win wars with violence?? States craft through dialogue, discourse and coffee is far more effective (and healthy for the planet).
[/quote]

Wars are won with decisive contained violence, not just the most violence. Our other options to end WW2 other than Fat Man and Little Boy was a full scale invasion of Japan. Conservative estimates had American casualty rates at 250,000. That’s just American casualties. That does not include Japanese casualties which could and would have been that or more.
As counter intuitive as it seems, the decision to drop the bomb on them was done in the interest in saving, American lives first; and lives in general latter. I recognize it’s small comfort to the some 180,000 victims of the blasts. But the casualty counts of all the alternatives were estimated to be much higher. Based on their experience in the war they were pretty good at guessing casualty counts and erred on the low end.
Japan was not going to stop for any reason.
Having conversations with Cushin and Cortes who live there have provided some insight into why that was true, they are a proud people. The invasion force that was proposed was to be in excess of 1 million soldiers with the expectation at at least a quarter of them would be killed in the invasion. Japan was prepared for it.
It’s tough to say if there were actually better alternatives. Looking at it through the eye’s of the 1945 war wary American military, I doubt they had better alternatives. But it was calculated, decisive and contained violence.[/quote]

I completely agree. The decision to drop the bombs saved far more Japanese lives than it took, though that wasn’t its intention.

P.S., I haven’t actually read Chushin or Cortez’ views on the subject. I’d be interested to know the modern Japanese perspective of the events.[/quote]

Modern Japanese have adopted the view that they were the victims and America was the big bad aggressor and they really just didn’t deserve what they got. And they’ve created an entire educational and societal infrastructure that serves to indoctrinate this belief in them from the earliest age under the guise of “peace.” It’s extremely frustrating to watch and I could go into it very deeply (as we have here a few times before) but it would involve a HUGE thread derail so I’ll leave it at this for now.

191

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:

So what’s the alternative? Drone strikes until they give up? You cannot negotiate with these people, so either send in conventional forces that can recapture territory, train local forces (bad idea, from what we have seen the last several decades), or send in PMC’s.
[/quote]

How about something we have not tried? I remember reading when ISIS was on the march across Iraq from Syria, members of the Awakening group were begging the Iraqi army & US for help but the US did nothing and the Iraqi forces retreated or were slaughtered and the Sunni tribesmen were forced to assimilate.

We should tell the members of ISIS themselves to either defect or turn their guns on their leaders or face annihilation. That might persuade Sunni tribesmen on the fence or others who converted to Islam to save their lives to action.

Anyone think this would be an option?

192

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
This is my wife’s proposal. If she were president, this is what she would do…

Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple “Good evening America. You’re welcome. Good night.”[/quote]

Respond to mass murder with nuclear mass murder. Seems tenable. [/quote]

I know! I’m still am saddled with guilt for our actions in WW2!

I think America should be brought up on crimes through the World Court.

Why do people think you win wars with violence?? States craft through dialogue, discourse and coffee is far more effective (and healthy for the planet).
[/quote]

Wars are won with decisive contained violence, not just the most violence. Our other options to end WW2 other than Fat Man and Little Boy was a full scale invasion of Japan. Conservative estimates had American casualty rates at 250,000. That’s just American casualties. That does not include Japanese casualties which could and would have been that or more.
As counter intuitive as it seems, the decision to drop the bomb on them was done in the interest in saving, American lives first; and lives in general latter. I recognize it’s small comfort to the some 180,000 victims of the blasts. But the casualty counts of all the alternatives were estimated to be much higher. Based on their experience in the war they were pretty good at guessing casualty counts and erred on the low end.
Japan was not going to stop for any reason.
Having conversations with Cushin and Cortes who live there have provided some insight into why that was true, they are a proud people. The invasion force that was proposed was to be in excess of 1 million soldiers with the expectation at at least a quarter of them would be killed in the invasion. Japan was prepared for it.
It’s tough to say if there were actually better alternatives. Looking at it through the eye’s of the 1945 war wary American military, I doubt they had better alternatives. But it was calculated, decisive and contained violence.[/quote]

I completely agree. The decision to drop the bombs saved far more Japanese lives than it took, though that wasn’t its intention.

P.S., I haven’t actually read Chushin or Cortez’ views on the subject. I’d be interested to know the modern Japanese perspective of the events.[/quote]

Modern Japanese have adopted the view that they were the victims and America was the big bad aggressor and they really just didn’t deserve what they got. And they’ve created an entire educational and societal infrastructure that serves to indoctrinate this belief in them from the earliest age under the guise of “peace.” It’s extremely frustrating to watch and I could go into it very deeply (as we have here a few times before) but it would involve a HUGE thread derail so I’ll leave it at this for now. [/quote]

Thank you for the response. I genuinely appreciate your insight.

193

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Modern Japanese have adopted the view that they were the victims and America was the big bad aggressor and they really just didn’t deserve what they got. And they’ve created an entire educational and societal infrastructure that serves to indoctrinate this belief in them from the earliest age under the guise of “peace.” It’s extremely frustrating to watch and I could go into it very deeply (as we have here a few times before) but it would involve a HUGE thread derail so I’ll leave it at this for now. [/quote]

Would you mind starting a thread about this?
I don’t have any specific questions, but would like to be more informed.

194

[quote]Iron Condor wrote:
So what’s the alternative? Drone strikes until they give up? You cannot negotiate with these people, so either send in conventional forces that can recapture territory, train local forces (bad idea, from what we have seen the last several decades), or send in PMC’s.
[/quote]

Many critics assert that the current policy of limited air strikes is insufficient to defeat or seriously weaken ISIL and have offered radical alternatives. However, these “cures” are far worse than the disease. Mercenaries are unreliable and costly, and ISIL would welcome the opportunity to slaughter former American service members. The best plan is to aggressively move forward within the broad parameters of the current strategy, known in defense analysis circles as “hammer and anvil”.

The strategy puts ISIL in a catch-22: It could either choose to concentrate its forces to achieve local superiority over opposing ground troops and then be decimated by the United States’ airpower “hammer”; or it could avoid airstrikes by dispersing its forces into small units and so be vulnerable to defeat by the opposing ground force “anvil.” Either way, ISIL loses.

In addition, the United States should escalate kill/capture missions carried out by special operations forces. In the irregular wars America has actually fought, and remains likely to fight, a combined effort of airpower, special operations forces, and the intelligence community is simply a better instrument for American policymakers than conventional landpower. This lethal triumvirate is the best course forward with ISIL, not unreliable and costly PMCs.

Along with the lethal triumvirate of special operations, intelligence, and airpower, the United States should pursue deligitimization. Delegitimization suggests that states and substate actors can use the religious or ideological rationale that informs terrorist behavior to influence it. In the case of ISIL, the organization has carefully elaborated a robust metanarrative that has proved to be remarkably successful as a recruitment tool, in identity formation for adherents, as public apologia and interpretation of the Koran, and as a weapon of war -the so-called media jihad. . Delegitimization would have the United States and its friends and allies use ISIL’s own narrative against it by targeting and degrading the ideological motivation that guides support for and participation in terrorism.

195

[quote]Bismark wrote:

In the case of ISIL, the organization has carefully elaborated a robust metanarrative that has proved to be remarkably successful as a recruitment tool, in identity formation for adherents, as public apologia and interpretation of the Koran, and as a weapon of war -the so-called media jihad. . Delegitimization would have the United States and its friends and allies use ISIL’s own narrative against it by targeting and degrading the ideological motivation that guides support for and participation in terrorism.[/quote]

They’ve been referring to ISIS/ISIL as Daesh more over the last couple days, a term I hadn’t heard before.

I think what you list here and what Pat alluded to earlier - a focus on the recruitment source (mosques, imams/clerics), in addition to a vocal condemnation from the Muslim states - would certainly be a step in the right direction.

196

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

In the case of ISIL, the organization has carefully elaborated a robust metanarrative that has proved to be remarkably successful as a recruitment tool, in identity formation for adherents, as public apologia and interpretation of the Koran, and as a weapon of war -the so-called media jihad. . Delegitimization would have the United States and its friends and allies use ISIL’s own narrative against it by targeting and degrading the ideological motivation that guides support for and participation in terrorism.[/quote]

They’ve been referring to ISIS/ISIL as Daesh more over the last couple days, a term I hadn’t heard before.

I think what you list here and what Pat alluded to earlier - a focus on the recruitment source (mosques, imams/clerics), in addition to a vocal condemnation from the Muslim states - would certainly be a step in the right direction.[/quote]

Names carry meaning, and I suppose if Daesh is a slanderous term for them, then all the better, but I have a few concerns/comments.
Calling them ISIS/ISIL/IS implicitly recognizes that they are a state, which I don’t think is accurate, and possibly legitimizes them in the eyes of some.
Also with ISIS/ISIL/IS, which I do like, is that recognizes that this is related to Islam, and Islamic terrorism, which Daesh leaves out. With all the PC-washing of Islam and terrorism being inherently linked, I think that its important to recognize the ideology of these terrorists, and that it traces back to their shitty book, and pedophile leader drawn here drooling :stuck_out_tongue:

197

“in addition to a vocal condemnation from the Muslim states - would certainly be a step in the right direction”

I would like to expand on this a little. Even through I have spent a vast majority of my time in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have been part of assignments in Kuwait, U.A.E, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Qatar. I have a lot of experience dealing with Sunnis and Shiites, Kurd’s,Turks, and Turkomen. During all this time, working with various elements, I have NEVER heard a member of the Muslin faith actually condemn a terrorist attack against Westerners. Now, maybe its happened while I was in some remote area, but, has Saudi Arabia Egypt, Iran, etc. came out against the Paris attacks? Probably not, because that’s not the mind set. Let me give you an example of a “common” person. I cannot speak fluent Dari, so, when critical information needs to be dealt with, I have a vetted (supposedly) interpreter who is with me on a daily basis. Sunday Morning after prayers:

Me: “You know about Paris?”

Him: “Yes”

Me: “What do you think about the attack?”

Him: " Were any of the faithful killed?" meaning were any Muslims killed.

Me:" Don’t know about that, probably. Paris has a large Muslim population and the odds are good someone was out dining or something"

Him: “Inshallah, I must pray for the faithful”

Do you see the mindset here? The deaths of Westerners does not even register, because, they are unclean. The religion first, everything else means nothing.

AFN is broadcasting the Sunday night football game this morning. I am waiting on a helio in a hanger with the game starting. I see the band came out on the field with a French flag to honor the dead. Then scenes were shown of various cities around the States honoring the dead with the French colors on buildings, etc. Has the Gulf Sates done the same? or any Arab nation? If so, I would be shocked.

This is a long winded version of saying this: IMHO, until the Arab States wake and realize that ISIS or any any other extremist group is a severe threat to their way of life, then nothing will ever be resolved.

Now, I am honest enough to admit, I have a very limited view based on my experience, but, in simple terms, I don’t believe it will ever happen because, the life of a infidel is worth nothing. Just my 2 cents.

199

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

In the case of ISIL, the organization has carefully elaborated a robust metanarrative that has proved to be remarkably successful as a recruitment tool, in identity formation for adherents, as public apologia and interpretation of the Koran, and as a weapon of war -the so-called media jihad. . Delegitimization would have the United States and its friends and allies use ISIL’s own narrative against it by targeting and degrading the ideological motivation that guides support for and participation in terrorism.[/quote]

They’ve been referring to ISIS/ISIL as Daesh more over the last couple days, a term I hadn’t heard before.

I think what you list here and what Pat alluded to earlier - a focus on the recruitment source (mosques, imams/clerics), in addition to a vocal condemnation from the Muslim states - would certainly be a step in the right direction.[/quote]

Names carry meaning, and I suppose if Daesh is a slanderous term for them, then all the better, but I have a few concerns/comments.
Calling them ISIS/ISIL/IS implicitly recognizes that they are a state, which I don’t think is accurate, and possibly legitimizes them in the eyes of some.
Also with ISIS/ISIL/IS, which I do like, is that recognizes that this is related to Islam, and Islamic terrorism, which Daesh leaves out. With all the PC-washing of Islam and terrorism being inherently linked, I think that its important to recognize the ideology of these terrorists, and that it traces back to their shitty book, and pedophile leader drawn here drooling :P[/quote]

I agree with you…I guess it’s the infantile part of me that likes it when the “heavies” take digs at these fuckers. Sort of like when Bush Sr. purposely mispronounced Saddam Hussein’s name (“Sa-damn”).

200

[quote]idaho wrote:
“in addition to a vocal condemnation from the Muslim states - would certainly be a step in the right direction”

I would like to expand on this a little. Even through I have spent a vast majority of my time in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have been part of assignments in Kuwait, U.A.E, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Qatar. I have a lot of experience dealing with Sunnis and Shiites, Kurd’s,Turks, and Turkomen. During all this time, working with various elements, I have NEVER heard a member of the Muslin faith actually condemn a terrorist attack against Westerners. Now, maybe its happened while I was in some remote area, but, has Saudi Arabia Egypt, Iran, etc. came out against the Paris attacks? Probably not, because that’s not the mind set. Let me give you an example of a “common” person. I cannot speak fluent Dari, so, when critical information needs to be dealt with, I have a vetted (supposedly) interpreter who is with me on a daily basis. Sunday Morning after prayers:

Me: “You know about Paris?”

Him: “Yes”

Me: “What do you think about the attack?”

Him: " Were any of the faithful killed?" meaning were any Muslims killed.

Me:" Don’t know about that, probably. Paris has a large Muslim population and the odds are good someone was out dining or something"

Him: “Inshallah, I must pray for the faithful”

Do you see the mindset here? The deaths of Westerners does not even register, because, they are unclean. The religion first, everything else means nothing.

AFN is broadcasting the Sunday night football game this morning. I am waiting on a helio in a hanger with the game starting. I see the band came out on the field with a French flag to honor the dead. Then scenes were shown of various cities around the States honoring the dead with the French colors on buildings, etc. Has the Gulf Sates done the same? or any Arab nation? If so, I would be shocked.

This is a long winded version of saying this: IMHO, until the Arab States wake and realize that ISIS or any any other extremist group is a severe threat to their way of life, then nothing will ever be resolved.

Now, I am honest enough to admit, I have a very limited view based on my experience, but, in simple terms, I don’t believe it will ever happen because, the life of a infidel is worth nothing. Just my 2 cents. [/quote]

And that right there is what worries me. Your translator is on the ground, next to you, seeing the same things you are. I just hope there are people in these countries who can maybe take a 10k’ view of the situation and call it what it is. But that is probably wishful thinking.

The fact that you’re replying to this thread while in the ME, dealing with all of this firsthand…well, it’s humbling. Thank you, sincerely, for you service. That may sound like empty rhetoric, but I mean it. Always interested to hear your take on things since you are so close to it. (And the 'Hawks better pull this off dammit).